On the agenda: meeting — data center (Jan 7)

AGENDA
Madison County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors
Joint Meeting
Madison County Administrative Auditorium
414 North Main Street, Madison, VA 22727
Wednesday, January 7th, 2026- 7:00 p.m.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC62By71sBkniEzxnfQNAdEA/videos
GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/346319589
Call to Order
• Pledge of Allegiance & Moment of Silence
• Determine Presence of Quorum
• Microphone Reminder
Adoption of Agenda
General Public Comment
New Business
• Adoption of Minutes – December 17, 2025
Public Hearings
•

(Case No. RZ-11-25-01) John Wright – Rezoning Request (Public Hearing)
John Wright has applied to rezone the parcel identified as Madison County tax map 46-39A from (split-zoned)
A-1/C-1 to A-1. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a future boundary line adjustment with an adjacent
parcel.

•

(Case No. ZOA-05-25-01) Al Esh – Zoning Text Amendment (Public Hearing)
Al Esh has proposed changes to Article 7 (residential multiple family R-3) in order to facilitate more orderly
development of housing projects.

•

(Case No. ZOA-05-25-03) Ordinance Amendment (Public Hearing)
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider removal, modification, or retention
of Madison County Zoning Ordinance 5-2-1, and 5-1-1.

Other Items from the Planning Commission, Staff, or Public
Upcoming PC Workshop Items
•

(Case No. SU-12-25-1) Hal Mayer – Special Use Permit (Second Workshop)
Hal Mayer has applied for a special use permit to convert an existing single-family home to a duplex on
property identified as 4185 Orange Rd and further identified as Madison County tax map 57-118B. The
subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is 1.489 acres (GIS). A duplex is a special permit use in the
A-1 zoning district under Madison County Code of Ordinances, Appendix 1, Article 4-2-18.

Page 1 of 2

•

(Case No. SU-12-25-2) Eden Ridge – Special Use Permit (Second Workshop)
Stephen Found, on behalf of Leonard and Lori Peters, has applied for a special use permit seeking an event
venue on property identified as 868 Novum Church Rd, and further identified as Madison County tax map 2438. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is 152.624 acres (GIS). An event venue is a special
permit use in the A-1 zoning district under Madison County Code of Ordinances, Appendix 1, Article 14-18.

•

(Case No. ZOA-11-25-01) Home Occupation/Rural Services Ordinance (Second Workshop)
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a Rural
Services/Contractor Use ordinance to allow for small-medium scale, low-impact, service or contracting
businesses in rural areas, where such businesses are accessory to or compatible with agricultural, forestry, and
low-density residential uses. This SUP is intended to support economic opportunity while ensuring protection
of rural character, minimizing adverse environmental impacts, and preserving compatibility with adjacent
properties.

•

Other cases as referred by Preliminary Development Review Committee.

General Public Comment
Adjournment

Full Information Packet

Page 2 of 2

Madison, Virginia 22727

Madison County Planning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes December 17, 2025
The Madison County Planning Commission Workshop meeting was held in the Madison County
Administrative Auditorium at 414 N. Main Street in the Town of Madison, Virginia it was called to
order by Chairman Steve Carpenter at 6:30 PM.

Determine Presence of a Quorum & Microphone Reminder
Chairman Carpenter determined there was a quorum.
As a quorum was established the following members were present, Chairman Steve Carpenter,
Vice-Chairman Pete Elliott, Commissioners James Graves, III, Nathan Cowan, Jim Smith, Mike
Snider, and Zachary Whitman. Also present was Allen Nicholls, Zoning Administrator and Hannon
Wright, County Attorney. Board of Supervisor members present were Chairman Clay Jackson and
Vice Chairman Carty Yowell.
Adoption of Agenda
Cowan moved to adopt the agenda as presented, seconded by Whitman Aye: Carpenter, Elliott,
Graves, Smith, Cowan, Whitman, Snider. Nay: (0); Abstain (0); Absent: (0). The motion passed
unanimously.
Public Comment
The floor was opened for general public comment. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the floor
for public comment.
New Business
Adoption of Minutes – November 19, 2025

Page 1 of 7

Cowan made a motion to adopt the minutes from November 19, 2025, as presented, seconded
by Whitman. Aye: Carpenter, Elliott, Smith, Graves, Cowan, Whitman, Snider. Nay: (0); Abstain
(0); Absent: (0). The motion passed.
Adoption of Minutes – December 3, 2025
Cowan made a motion to adopt the minutes from December 3, 2025, as presented, seconded by
Graves. Aye: Carpenter, Elliott, Smith, Graves, Cowan, Whitman, Snider. Nay: (0); Abstain (0);
Absent: (0). The motion passed.
(Case No. RZ-11-25-01) John Wright – Rezoning Request (Second Workshop)
John Wright has applied to rezone the parcel identified as Madison County tax map 46-39A from
(split-zoned) A-1/C-1 to A-1. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a future boundary line
adjustment with an adjacent parcel.
Nicholls- This has been advertised for public hearing in January. Just homogenizing the zoning
for this parcel with the surrounding area.
Carpenter – No discussion or questions.
The floor was opened for public comment. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the floor for public
comment.
(Case No. SU-12-25-1) Hal Mayer – Special Use Permit (First Workshop)
Hal Mayer has applied for a special use permit to convert an existing single-family home to a
duplex on property identified as 4185 Orange Rd and further identified as Madison County tax
map 57-118B. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is 1.489 acres (GIS). A duplex
is a special permit use in the A-1 zoning district under Madison County Code of Ordinances,
Appendix 1, Article 4-2-18.
Nicholls- the applicant is attending remotely. This property is located on Orange Rd, roughly 1.5
acres, which is already non-conforming lot size in A1 zoning. This has existed since before the
ordinances were in place. A duplex is a single use, so this doesn’t cause any additional nonconforming use. At PDRC VDOT didn’t have any concerns, as this won’t really cause any more
traffic than two houses on a shared driveway. VDH does want a wastewater characterization,
and change of use. The Building Official noted that there would be a need for a firewall between
the units.
Smith – Will the septic be sufficient to serve the 2 units? Nicholls – VDH didn’t raise a specific
concern, but they’ll make a final determination when they receive the items mentioned at PDRC.
Worth noting is that the number of bedrooms will not change.
Elliott – Are we just splitting the building into 2 separate apartments? Mayer- I’ll put a fire wall
where they want me to and make one apartment on the left and second on the right.
Snider – Will they have to go to BZA? Nicholls- No, they are not changing the footprint. Sniderwhat makes it non-conforming? Nicholls- the fact that it is not 3 acres in A1 zoning.
Whitman – Has a soil scientist been hired yet, to see if the drain field will be sufficient? MayerNo, I was waiting to see if I would be granted the SUP before I hire anyone else.
Elliott – Is this the house that belonged to Good Hope Church? Mayer – Yes, it is.

Page 2 of 7

The floor was opened for public comment. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the floor for public
comment.
(Case No. SU-12-25-2) Eden Ridge – Special Use Permit (First Workshop)
Stephen Found, on behalf of Leonard and Lori Peters, has applied for a special use permit
seeking an event venue on property identified as 868 Novum Church Rd, and further identified
as Madison County tax map 24-38. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is
152.624 acres (GIS). An event venue is a special permit use in the A-1 zoning district under
Madison County Code of Ordinances, Appendix 1, Article 14-18.
Nicholls- Parcel is between Novum Church Road and Hoover Road. At PDRC – VDOT mentioned
that the current entrance may be ok for light commercial, but they would have to upgrade in the
future. VDH – stated that the porta potties would be acceptable to begin with but will need
permanent facilities during future development phases. Pending comments from the Building
Official.
Stephen Found – I am representing The Peters’ during this proposal. I am a friend that wanted
to help them with this process. The first phase would be to create a pad site for a tent structure
and build permanent structures later. Future development has not been designed yet. The Peters
love the land and the county, and want to preserve what is there. And let others share their love
of the property. I have Leonard and Lori Peters here with me tonight, as well as their engineer,
Mr. Marvin Hinchey.
Snider – How close is this from the houses on the neighboring properties? Peters - We are at
least 400-500 yards from nearest house and those are both vacant. Found – we have a plan to
meet with the neighbors and invite them over so that they can see what’s going on. I’ll be
managing the property.
Elliott – how many people are you expecting for a wedding venue? Found – we are expecting to
serve up to 200 people. We will have to work out the parking areas. Hinchey – we’re anticipating
up to 50 spaces.
Snider – how many events are you anticipating? Found – we’d love to have 1 each weekend.
That’s what we anticipate being able to handle. But weddings are typically an April to November
timeframe, so maybe more like 38-40 per year. The Peters are open to other types of events,
and those may be smaller.
Elliott – if this is approved, how soon do you expect to be in operation? Peters- If everything goes
well, summer of 2026. Found- if we are given approval in February, we would begin right away.
Whitman – What is your timeline for phase two of the development? Peters- I think we’ll play it
by ear, as we see how phase one goes.
Carpenter – the neighbors are the biggest concern. Another concern is safety. You have a large
area of flood plain. Almost your entire driveway is in the flood plain. You might have an issue
moving traffic in and out in certain types of weather. What is the stream through there? Peters –
It’s Deep Run.
Elliott – Is there already a bridge? Peters- Yes, the previous owner rebuilt the bridge before we
bought it, and it is a solid concrete bridge. Professionally built.
Snider – so the house that is closest to where you’ll be building, you think it’s empty right now?
How close is that? Peters – approximately 300 yards.
Carpenter – What are your thoughts on screening the event venue from the neighbors? PetersI have already started planting evergreens and would be open to more as needed.
Elliott – will there be live music? Peters – yes. And we’ll have a cut off time of 9pm during the
week and 10pm on the weekends. Speakers will not be facing out, to help with noise for the
neighbors. And the same with any lighting.

Page 3 of 7

The floor was opened for public comment.
Matt Lafley – I am an adjoining property. The house is not vacant; we are there often and will be
permanent residents soon. I want to be a good neighbor, but I do have concerns. The site they
will be building on is near to my home. And it’s probably the highest site on their farm. I am
concerned about noise and disrupted views. The parking area would be in my line of site as well.
Tents in the beginning, that would be a challenge for the local neighbors.
Hearing nothing further, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Snider – Is there a possibility of visiting the site? Peters- yes. Nicholls – We can put you in contact
with the Peters’ so that you can set up a meeting time.
(Case No. ZOA-11-25-01) Ordinance Amendment (First Workshop)
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a
Rural Services/Contractor Use ordinance to allow for small-medium scale, low-impact, service or
contracting businesses in rural areas, where such businesses are accessory to or compatible with
agricultural, forestry, and low-density residential uses. This SUP is intended to support economic
opportunity while ensuring protection of rural character, minimizing adverse environmental
impacts, and preserving compatibility with adjacent properties.
Nicholls – We discussed this as a multi-tier ordinance. At what point do we decide that a person
has a business that cannot be seen from the outside and then having to get a permit when
operations begin to impact the neighbors.
Cowan – I think it is clear that we need something to make it possible for folks to work from home
in a rural area that is scattered. I don’t understand the correlation between operating businesses
that are “accessory to or compatible with agricultural, forestry, and low-density residential uses”
and of different scale. Nicholls- I think we have been running into folks operating businesses with
similar equipment. Think of a farmer that has similar equipment needed for landscaping, so they
live on and operate their farm, but also have a landscaping business on the side. Cowan – there
is definite crossover on equipment sometimes. Also, are we intending to allow some clients to be
onsite for some of the more extensive tiers? Nicholls – your home occupation that cannot be
seen from the outside, that could be by right use. If there is only one client at the home at a time,
and only occasionally, that is not really a disturbance to the neighbors.
Cowan – I looked at zoning ordinances in neighboring counties, and there were allowed uses in
6 or 7 surrounding counties. I realize you are proposing this as an SUP. I’ll look for that as well.
Orange has a home occupation and home enterprise uses. Home occupations are generally by
right and the next steps that are handled administratively. Nicholls – the more things that you
want to make by right, I would be in favor of.
Elliott – One big concern I have, when we start looking at little businesses, and we start issuing
SUPs all over the county, in my opinion, this is an alternative to spot zoning for business. We
should have criteria to determine exactly who is able to operate out of their home, or who need to
rezone to B1. Snider – I think we need to look at how many employees the business has, rather
than how many clients are visiting the business/home. If there are 20 employees showing up to
the home. Nicholls- yes, those are items to be debated to determine what those limits will be,
and how we will determine each tier.
Snider – At the last meeting I wanted to see how this benefits the people of the county.
Cowan – The rural nature of the county, most of the land is A1 and C1. I agree that a SUP can
be a type of spot zoning. Not in favor of issuing SUP for a business in A1. Nicholls- A difference

Page 4 of 7

between spot zoning and the SUP: the SUP only gives a single use, rather than the whole bundle
of business uses, that would be allowed in a B1 zoning. Wright- a benefit that I see for the SUP,
it’s case by case, and the conditions that can be imposed on them as the board sees fit. The
other issue will be scale, and what is appropriate for the SUP vs. requiring a rezoning. We can
create the criteria/requirements however we want, as needed for Madison County.
Snider – I think we are going to have to figure out enforcement.
Whitman – I have looked at how other counties are handling business permits and spot zoning.
As they have transitioned from more agricultural to more business atmosphere.
Jackson – I think that we all got the draft. Only tier 3 would require an SUP. Teir 2 may need an
SUP. A very few businesses in this county are going to be employing 20+ employees. If you read
through this, it’s likely that most businesses will be captured by tier 1. And that use would be by
right.
Cowan – I understand there is a need for SUPs. There are plenty of examples in surrounding
counties. I do want this to be designed for the working people of Madison County. One thing that
I liked in the Orange County ordinance is that they charge a $100 fee for up to 4 employees, and
that allows for some tracking metrics.
Carpenter – Our ordinance states that any activity not specifically listed in the ordinance is not
allowed. There are a lot of businesses around the county that are operating in a gray area. They
are safe unless someone notices them. Most of those will be fine and fall under the by-right, tier
1 category.
Carpenter – In tier two you mention limited outdoor activity. How would that be quantified?
Nicholls- If you have employees arrive and leave to work off site, that would be limited activity. If
they are performing work outside on the property, that might be a consideration. If you have
customers coming to the house once or twice a month, that’s limited. But if customers come daily,
that probably doesn’t qualify. Carpenter – What’s going to be our objective characteristic of limited
outdoor activity? Nicholls- I like language that we’ve used before, where we look at hours per day
of activity outside. And it’s something to be fleshed out.
Snider – how are we going to make sure that people report themselves and their activity? Nicholls
– well, we are typically a complaint-based county. We don’t have inspectors driving around the
county looking for violations. We generally find them when there has been a complaint. When
we find them, we typically send a notice of violation, and then we work to bring them into
compliance. Snider – I do think one of the problems will be that if a complaint is made against 2
different businesses, we have to handle them fairly and equally.
Cowan – Do we require that you have 6 acres for a SUP if you have a home there as well?
Nicholls – That is typically what we have. I think that we have to discuss that and decide where
we will draw the line in the sand. If they are truly a tier 1 home occupation, and it’s by right, then
is it a problem? If they have a larger scale business, and an SUP is needed, I think it would likely
be considered an additional use. Cowan – but if we reach the need for an SUP? Nicholls- if you
reach that point, you would need 3 acres per use, so 6 acres or more needed for a home and
business.
The floor was opened for public comment. Hearing none, the Chairman closed the floor for public
comment.
Informational/Correspondence
Upcoming Public Hearings and Workshops

Page 5 of 7

(Case No. RZ-11-25-01) John Wright – Rezoning Request (Public Hearing)
John Wright has applied to rezone the parcel identified as Madison County tax map 46-39A from
(split-zoned) A-1/C-1 to A-1. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a future boundary line
adjustment with an adjacent parcel.
(Case No. ZOA-05-25-01) Al Esh – Zoning Text Amendment (Public Hearing)
Al Esh has proposed changes to Article 7 (residential multiple family R-3) in order to facilitate
more orderly development of housing projects.
(Case No. ZOA-05-25-03) Ordinance Amendment (Public Hearing)
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider removal,
modification, or retention of Madison County Zoning Ordinance 5-2-1, and 5-1-1.
(Case No. SU-12-25-1) Hal Mayer – Special Use Permit (Second Workshop)
Hal Mayer has applied for a special use permit to convert an existing single-family home to a
duplex on property identified as 4185 Orange Rd and further identified as Madison County tax
map 57-118B. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is 1.489 acres (GIS). A duplex
is a special permit use in the A-1 zoning district under Madison County Code of Ordinances,
Appendix 1, Article 4-2-18.
(Case No. SU-12-25-2) Eden Ridge – Special Use Permit (Second Workshop)
Stephen Found, on behalf of Leonard and Lori Peters, has applied for a special use permit
seeking an event venue on property identified as 868 Novum Church Rd, and further identified
as Madison County tax map 24-38. The subject property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) and is
152.624 acres (GIS). An event venue is a special permit use in the A-1 zoning district under
Madison County Code of Ordinances, Appendix 1, Article 14-18.
(Case No. ZOA-11-25-01) Ordinance Amendment (Second Workshop)
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a
Rural Services/Contractor Use ordinance to allow for small-medium scale, low-impact, service
or contracting businesses in rural areas, where such businesses are accessory to or compatible
with agricultural, forestry, and low-density residential uses. This SUP is intended to support
economic opportunity while ensuring protection of rural character, minimizing adverse
environmental impacts, and preserving compatibility with adjacent properties.
Nicholls - I will put this in a format that matches our ordinances and I will send that out in
advance of the agenda so that you have time to review it. If you have any individual thoughts
on where any numbers need to be, please send that to me and I’ll make note of that.
Other cases as referred by Preliminary Development Review Committee.
Other Items from the Planning Commission, Staff, or Public
General Public Comment
Snider – as this is my last meeting as a Planning Commissioner, I want to say it’s been nice to be
a part of this commission. I have learned a lot, and I want to thank the Board for putting me on
this commission. I feel like I am a big part of the community.
Adjournment

Page 6 of 7

Snider made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Cowan. Aye: Carpenter, Elliott, Smith,
Graves, Cowan, Whitman, Snider. Nay: (0); Abstain (0); Absent: (0). The motion passed.

End of Minutes:
Attest:

Stephen Carpenter, Chairman of Planning Commission

Date:

Allen Nicholls, Secretary of Planning Commission

Date:

Page 7 of 7

To:

Madison County Planning Commission

From:

Allen Nicholls, Planning and Zoning Administrator

Subject:

Wright Rezoning Application

Date:

January 7, 2026

Background
John Wright has applied to rezone the parcel identified as Madison County tax map 46-39A
from (split-zoned) A-1/C-1 to A-1. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow a future boundary
line adjustment with an adjacent parcel.
PDRC Comments
This case was heard at the June 3, 2025 meeting of the Preliminary Development Review
Committee. The following are comments made by stakeholders:
VDOT: Present but no comments.
VDH: Present but no comments.
Madison County Building Official: Present but no comments.

Staff Recommendation
The subject property is currently split-zoned A-1 and C-1, which can create complications
for property administration, land transfers, and boundary adjustments. Rezoning the parcel
to a single A-1 district will eliminate this inconsistency and allow the property owner to
complete a boundary line adjustment with an adjoining parcel. The proposed A-1 zoning is
consistent with surrounding land uses, which are predominantly agricultural and rural in
character. The request is consistent with the goals of the Madison County Comprehensive
Plan. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with existing land use patterns,
creates no negative impacts on public facilities, infrastructure, or neighboring properties,

and serves a legitimate administrative and planning purpose. Based on this analysis, the
lack of comments received during the PDRC review, and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends approval of the Wright Rezoning Application to
rezone Tax Map Parcel 46-39A from split-zoned A-1/C-1 to A-1 (Agricultural).

To:

Madison County Planning Commission

From:

Allen Nicholls, Planning and Zoning Administrator

Subject:

Al Esh – Zoning Text Amendment

Date:

January 7, 2026

Background
Al Esh has submitted an application for a zoning text amendment of the Madison County
Code of Ordinances, Appendix 1 – Zoning, Article 7 (Residential Multiple Family R-3).
The proposed changes are attached in a redlined document below.

Timeline
First Workshop May 21st, 2025
Application Tabled for June, July Workshops
Second Workshop August 20th, 2025
Third Workshop September 17th, 2025
Public Hearing October 1st, 2025
-

BOS sent back to Planning Commission

Fourth Workshop October 15th, 2025
Fifth Workshop November 19th, 2025

Staff Recommendation – Approval
The proposed amendments to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance improve the efficiency of
land utilization within the R-3 district. By allowing narrower lot widths, the amendments
support more efficient use of land and infrastructure, including reduced internal street
length and utility extensions. This approach also encourages lot configurations that
emphasize usable front and rear yard space rather than excessive side yards, resulting in
more functional and desirable residential layouts. The proposed changes are consistent
with the stated intent of the R-3 district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
ordinance amendments.

ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3

ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3
Statement of Intent
This district is established to provide a mixture of multi-family dwellings, such as apartments, at a density not
to exceed eight dwelling units per acre. The district is designed to be part of a viable residential neighborhood
environment which includes households of varying types, including those with children. Because this zone permits
the highest residential density in Madison County, development within an R-3 zone must include the careful design
and construction of recreation and pedestrian circulation improvements, parking areas, and the adequate
provision of useable open space.
To ensure orderly planning and development under this zone in conjunction with other residential
neighborhoods, this zone shall be located adjacent to R-2 zones, or within or adjacent to existing towns, villages, or
settlements of Madison County. An R-3 zone shall only be established where public water and sewer facilities are
available. Further, this zone requires adequate, safe access to protect its residents and the surrounding uses.
Therefore, the zone shall be located adjacent to a major transportation route or traffic collector of the County.
In addition to the zoning ordinance, uses in this zone may be subject to the requirements of Madison County
Subdivision Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, and/or Floodplain
Management Ordinance. All multiple family uses are subject to the Site Plan Ordinance.
7-1. Use Regulations.
In the Residential Multiple Family District R-3 no building shall be erected or altered and no building or
premises shall be used for any purpose except the following:
Uses Permitted by Right
7-1-1.

Single detached dwelling.

7-1-2.

Multiple family dwelling (apartment).

7-1-3.

Townhouse.

7-1-4.

Public Service Corporation transmission lines, poles, pipes, meters, transformers and other
facilities necessary for the transmission and maintenance of public service utilities. Subject to Code of
Virginia, § 15.1-456, as amended.

7-1-5.

Home occupation as defined.

7-1-6.

Solar energy system (see Article 14-16, roof-mounted only).

7-2. Special Permit Uses. The following uses may also be permitted subject to securing a special use permit as
provided in Article 14-3:
7-2-1.

Agriculture exclusive of keeping of livestock or poultry.

7-2-2.

Hospital, clinic, and nursing home.

7-2-3.

Professional office (limited).

7-2-4.

Water and sewage treatment or distribution facilities where same are required by state and/or
federal regulations to protect the public health.

7-2-5.

Club and lodge, without overnight lodging.

7-2-6.

Small wind energy system.

(Ord. of 3-18-1998, § 4)
Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 1 of 4

ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3

7-3. Area Regulations.
7-3-1.

The minimum lot area shall be 10,000 square feet plus 2,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling unit. The Administrator may require a greater area if considered necessary by the Health
Official.
No development within this district shall have a density greater than eight dwelling units per gross acre
of site area nor shall buildings on any parcel within this district cover more than 35 percent of the total
lot area.
7-3-1.1 Single-family dwellings shall require a minimum lot area of eight thousand (8,000) square feet.
7-3-1.2. Townhouse dwellings shall require a minimum lot area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or
more per dwelling unit.
7-3-1.3. Multifamily dwelling may be constructed at a density of eight (8) units per acre.

7-3-2.

Open Space Requirements. The site for any multiple family or single family attached dwellings,
shall provide 40 percent of the lot area as open space. When individual ownership of dwelling units
exist, this space may be privately owned by the homeowners.

7-3-3.

Maximum Building Grouping. Not more than eight townhouses or attached dwelling units shall
be included in any one grouping, and no more than eight dwelling units shall be included within any
multiple-family dwelling, except affordable housing and/or senior housing not exceeding 60 dwelling
units may be included within a multiple-family dwelling. The maximum frontal length of any building or
structure in this zone shall not exceed 200 feet, except such maximum frontal length shall not apply to
a multiple-family dwelling used as affordable housing and/or senior housing not exceeding 60 dwelling
units.

(Ord. No. 2020-16, 10-7-2020)
7-4. Setback Regulations.
7-4-1.

Structures shall be located 35 feet or more from any street right-of-way which is 50 feet or
greater in width, or 60 feet or more from the center line of any street right-of-way less than 50 feet in
width.

7-4-2.

All accessory buildings must be located ten feet or more from any property line except that no
accessory building may be located closer to the front of a lot than the main structure.

7-5. Lot Width Requirements.
The minimum frontage for permitted uses shall be 150 feet measured at the setback line, or measured
at the location of the foundation of the subject parcel's principal dwelling or accessory building. The
minimum distance which the building is required to be located from the street right-of-way or center
line shall be known as the setback line.
7-5-1. All Single-family lots shall have a minimum width of 65 feet.
7-5-2 All Townhouse lots shall have a minimum width of 16 feet.
7-5-3. Multifamily lots shall have a minimum width of 150 feet.
(Ord. No. 2020-9, 3-4-2020)
7-6. Yard Regulations.
7-6-1.

Side. Each main structure or group of structures shall have a side yard of ten feet.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 2 of 4

ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3

7-6-2.

Rear. Each main structure or group of structures shall have a rear yard of 25 feet or more.

7-7. Sign Regulations.
Signs shall conform to Article 12 of this ordinance.
7-8. Height Regulations.
7-8-1.

Buildings may be erected up to 35 feet from the average adjacent ground elevation except that:

7-8-2.

The height limit for dwellings may be increased ten feet and up to three stories provided there
are two side yards for each permitted use, each of which is ten feet or more, plus one foot or more of
side yard for each additional foot of building height over 35 feet.

7-8-3.

A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library or hospital may be erected to a
height of 60 feet from the average adjacent ground elevation provided that required front, side, and
rear yards shall be increased one foot for each foot in height over 35 feet.

7-8-4.
7-8-5.
7-8-6.

Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, fire towers, chimneys, flues,
television antennae, and radio aerials may exceed the height limitation by 25 feet.

Additional height requires a Special Use Permit as provided for under Article 14-3. Parapet walls
may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest.
All accessory buildings shall be less than the main building in height.

7-9. Off-street Parking.
Off-street parking is subject to section 14-9 of this ordinance.
7-10. Entrance Regulations.
7-10-1.
The centerline of any entrance onto a Virginia primary road shall be 600 feet or more from the
centerline of any adjacent entrance; provided, however, each parcel of land that fronts on a Virginia
primary road and is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County prior to June
20, 1990, shall be permitted to have at least one such entrance; and provided further that the
aforesaid distance between entrances may be decreased to a point of nearest relief upon application
by special use permit if the Board of Supervisors after recommendation from the Planning Commission
and approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation finds that exceptional topographical
conditions such as rock formations or floodplain areas justify such decrease.
Each application for a special use permit under this paragraph shall include a plat of survey showing
both the 600-foot entrance point and the point of nearest relief. After approval, said plat of survey
shall be recorded by the applicant in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County.
7-10-2.
The centerline of any entrance onto U.S. Route 29 shall be 900 feet or more from the centerline
of any adjacent entrance; provided, however, each parcel of land that fronts on U.S. Route 29 and is
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County prior to June 20, 1990, shall be
permitted to have at least one such entrance; and provided further that the aforesaid distance
between entrances may be decreased to a point of nearest relief upon application by special use
permit if the Board of Supervisors after recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval
of the Virginia Department of Transportation finds that exceptional topographical conditions such as
rock formations or floodplain areas justify such decrease.
Each application for a special use permit under this paragraph shall include a plat of survey showing
both the 900-foot entrance point and the point of nearest relief. After approval, said plat of survey
shall be recorded by the applicant in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 3 of 4

ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3

Entrances shall be located at crossover points on U.S. Route 29 if feasible and required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The aforesaid entrance regulation shall not apply to U.S. Route 29 Business.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 4 of 4

65’ (TYP.)

MIN. 10’ SIDE YARD

MIN. 25’
REAR YARD

MAX BUILDING
HEIGHT 35’ **

MIN. 35’
FRONT SETBACK *

65’ MIN LOT WIDTH

SFD
MAX LOT COVERAGE: 35%
MIN LOT SIZE: 1,200 SF
(8,000 SF MOD)

16’ MIN
WIDTH

150’ MIN LOT WIDTH
FRONT
EDGE OF PAVEMENT SETBACK
MIN 60’
TO CL

FRONT
SETBACK
MIN 60’
TO CL

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

SFA

MF

MAX LOT COVERAGE: 35%
MIN LOT SIZE: 2,000 SF

MAX LOT COVERAGE: 35%
MIN LOT SIZE: NONE
MAX DENSITY: 8 DU/AC

* ROW FRONTAGE 50’+ WIDE.

Date: 8-12-2025

MAX BUILDING
HEIGHT 35’ **

MIN. 10’ SIDE YARD

125’ (TYP.)

MAX BUILDING
HEIGHT 35’ **

MIN. 10’ SIDE YARD

MIN. 25’
REAR YARD

MIN. 25’
REAR YARD

** INCREASE UP TO 10’ WITH ADDITIONAL 1:1 SETBACK.

Country view Estates
Typical Lot Details

Joint Meeting Madison County Board of Supervisors / Madison County Planning
Commission
Wednesday, October 1 2025 at 7:00 PM – 7 January 2026
Statement of James H Smith, CPC
IN RE: ZOA-05-25-01, Al Esh – Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Esh proposes changes
to Article 7 (residential multiple family R-3) “in order to facilitate more
orderly development of housing projects.”
The applicant comes before us requesting an amendment to Article 7. Residential
Multiple Family R-3, which would allow even greater density than what is currently
allowed by Madison County’s highest residential density zone.
These comments have nothing to do with being pro-development or antidevelopment and they do not address the efficacy of lot sizes, setbacks or open
spaces; they have everything to do with our statutory responsibility to perform due
diligence and be fiscally responsible to our County in advising our Board of
Supervisors. § 15.2-2221
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A vote in favor of this proposal is a vote in favor of a tax increase to those property
owners other than the ones purchasing the R-3 development as the capital and
operating burden contributed by the R-3 property owners will be inequitably
transferred to the existing property owners, creating a cross subsidy that should be
against public policy. The ONLY beneficiaries would be
1) the developer who would not be required to recognize and pay for the
financial impact on the county and
2) the new purchasers who would not only get a “free ride” for a significant
portion of the county services but also diminish the existing capacity which
places the county nearer to the need to expand those capabilities (e.g.,
schools, fire, public safety, emergency management, etc.)
While the proffer system is sidestepped by the developer friendly SB 974, proffers
are allowed under the Code of Virginia in rezonings. Therefore, the prudent
recommendation would be for the Board of Supervisors to consider
a) Downzoning the current R-3 (See: Turner v. Board of County Supervisors of
Prince William County 263 VA 283 (2000)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/va-supreme-court/1197325.html
b) Create new intensive zoning classifications and

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 2 of 8
Incorporate a template for zoning requests that incorporates provisions, tailored for
Madison County, found in Loudoun County’s Capital Intensity Factor approach. The
Capital Intensity Factor (CIF) is the dollar amount of the estimated capital facilities
impact of a new residential unit that is calculated using county capital facility
standards and demographic inputs. The CIF is used to assess the capital facilities
impacts of new residential development and provide a guideline for proffer
negotiations during residential rezonings. https://www.loudoun.gov/2530/CapitalIntensity-Factor
DISCUSSION
My rationale for the recommendation to reject the proposal and embark on the
downzoning and rezoning is to reset the adverse action of SB 974 by allowing for
proffers in the rezoning process. In support of this recommendation is the following
examination of what is “Known” and what are the “Known Unknowns” in the
landscape.
KNOWN AND KNOWN UNKNOWNS
What we know includes but is not limited to:
1) SB 974 essentially precludes the ability for the citizens of Madison to directly
voice their concerns regarding a development and further eliminates their
appointed commissioners on the Planning Commission from evaluating a
proposal and their elected representatives on the Board of Supervisors from
approving or denying a proposed development. In so doing, the General
Assembly has eliminated the ability of the locality to collect proffers to offset
costs to the locality.
2) The acreage under review fails to satisfy some of the fundamental requirements
for its existing zoning under ARTICLE 7. RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY R-3,
viz,
i) this zone shall be located adjacent to R-2 zones and it is not;
ii) an R-3 zone shall only be established where public water and sewer
facilities are available and they are not;
iii) the zone shall be located adjacent to a major transportation route or traffic
collector of the County and it is not (furthermore, the recently approved
event venue is being evaluated for traffic and will have priority).
iv) R-3 Statistics:
(a) In Madison County, water and sewer service is available primarily
within the Town limits and its immediate surroundings

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 3 of 8
(b) Other systems near the Town limits that are failing should receive

priority
(c) There are 44 parcels with (at least some) R-3 zoning.

(d) Total area of R-3 is estimated at 154.41 acres (could be 15-20 acres
more).
(e) In discussions with planning and zoning and my own research, it
would appear that only one parcel zoned R-3 has public
water/sewer (48-19A).
(f) Furthermore, it would appear that of the 44 parcels with R-3 zoning,
31 contain residences.
3) RSA is currently in the planning stage for increasing the capacity of its
wastewater system, but we know absolutely nothing about the details. We have
been informed (heard rumors) that RSA has secured financing and is obtaining
rights-of-way in the county, but we have no knowledge.
a) RSA Board members and personnel attended a recent Madison County BoS
meeting to “open dialogue” with the county regarding its plans.
b) Is the financing structured as a mortgage or an indenture?
c) What security is provided for the financing?
d) Does RSA have the ability to secure land under eminent domain within the
County or must rights-of-way be obtained? The RSA is a not-for-Profit
corporation that provides water and sewer services to areas of Orange and
Madison counties in Virginia. RSA operates under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and is responsible for regional water supply and
sewer services, but it does not operate under public utility regulations. In
Virginia, a service authority is a public body formed to provide public water
and wastewater services to residents, as established under the Virginia Water
and Waste Authorities Act, (Code of Virginia Title 15.2, Chapter 51). This act
provides the authority for localities in Virginia to create water and waste
authorities, which are instrumental in managing public health and welfare
through effective water supply and waste disposal systems While a service
authority operates as a public entity, it is not classified as a public utility in the
traditional sense, as it does not own or operate facilities for the generation or
distribution of electric energy or natural gas. Instead, it focuses on providing
essential public services, which distinguishes it from a public utility. Since the
RSA is neither a public utility nor a public service corporation; it does not have
power of eminent domain and cannot condemn land as accorded those
entities. However, it is unclear whether the provisions of paragraph 6 of §

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 4 of 8
15.2-5114. Powers of authority grants the power of eminent domain to RSA
OR whether they must obtain rights of way through negotiation.
e) Rapidan Service Authority Posted Connection & Availability Fees provides
that
i) New connections to Rapidan Service Authority’s water or sewer systems
are subject to review by RSA and other local authorities [emphasis
supplied]. Availability Charges will be assessed per EDU, if not already
collected for the property in question. Once these charges have been
collected and formal plans for connecting to RSA’s infrastructure have
been approved, additional Connection Costs will apply to cover the cost of
making the connection.
ii) Availability Fee: $10,000 per EDU (water) and $10,000 per EDU (sewer)
See: https://rapidan.org/connection-and-availability-fees
iii) “Equivalent Dwelling Unit” (EDU) is a specific volume of water or sewer
usage set by RSA, from time to time, based on actual usage experience or
other appropriate data. An EDU generally represents the volume of water
or sewer used by a single family. EDU calculations are made at the sole
discretion of RSA management
iv) Is there any requirement on when, to whom and under what conditions
RSA can/will transfer EDUs?
v) The term “other local authority” is not defined nor is the power of the
locality in decision-making addressed.
vi) While the developer will pay RSA $20,000 per dwelling unit for water and
sewer connections, nothing is being paid to the county for the $ 9,689.42
annual fiscal impact per household or $16,644.30 total annual expenditure
per public school student. (see detail in note at end)
4) Our Economic Development Committee has demonstrated that our property
taxes will increase over 50 percent in the near future if the tax base is not
expanded, and it is working toward seeking appropriate development of the Rt
29 corridor. Given the fact that counties in the Commonwealth are
administrative divisions and not sovereign entities, what rights/powers does
county government have regarding the following?
a) Development of commercial sites on the corridor will require adequate water,
wastewater and sewer.
b) Exactly who is making the determination as to what entity will benefit from
the Madison expansion of the RSA facilities—RSA, Residential Real Estate
Developers or the locality government
c) What say does Madison County have regarding the placement of
infrastructure along Rt. 29?

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 5 of 8
d) Should there be a requirement imposed by the County to reserve water and
sewer EDU connects for existing and future commercial development on the
Rt 29 Corridor?
5) In the workshop meetings and prelude to the Joint Hearing of April 3, 2023, CASE
NO. SP-0-24-02, Madison Holdings LLC, there were significant discussions of the
overall plan of the subject parcel. That discussion included the construction of
the storage facility which was apparently to support an apartment building of
single bedroom (plus a bonus room). Concept sketches of the apartments, a
convenience store, and storage units were provided by the Planning and Zoning
Administrator. Is the construction of an apartment building currently under
consideration? Did the application and permit granted for the site include an
apartment building? How many units were proposed for the apartment building?
Is there documented evidence regarding the sewerage requirements of the
apartments and convenience store?
6) During the workshops regarding the instant proposal, raw figures regarding the
Fiscal Impact of housing units as presented during the recent Economic
Development Committee / Board of Supervisors Town Hall were presented and
discussed. The concerns were summarily dismissed as it has not been
addressed, notwithstanding the provisions of Code of Virginia § 15.2-2296,
(Conditional zoning; declaration of legislative policy and findings; purpose) which
specifically addresses the offering of proffers by applicants in such a
conditional rezoning request. No proffers have been offered.
a) Ignoring taxes from other than Residential taxes, the Fiscal Impact of each
housing unit in Madison is $ 9,689.42 and the total Fiscal Impact limited to
local taxes is $ 5,256.62
b) The total annual expenditure per public school student is $16,644.30 and the
tax per proposed unit will not begin to cover that cost. Moreover, a project
this size, represented to be “starter homes” which suggests “starter families”
will result in a population of school age children that will seriously threaten
the capacity of the current school system, thus requiring significant capital
expenditures.
c) Attempts to gain specific data has been akin to playing whack-a-mole, e.g.,
i) During the first hearing on the application, I presented the Fiscal Impact of
housing units based on the county’s 2026 budget to address the tone of
applicant which was to provide “affordable starter homes”
ii) During the next hearing, “starter homes” with school aged children
somehow became retirement homes with a reduced fiscal impact;
iii) During the last hearing, I asked for a “guestimate” of the likely selling price
per dwelling unit and the number of dwelling units to enable me to

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 6 of 8
estimate the revenue portion of a fiscal impact analysis and the applicant
indicated he had “no earthly idea.”
iv) That strains credulity. According to my notes, the applicant’s conceptual
plan that was submitted to accompany his text amendment proposed 162
single-family detached dwellings, 50 multi-family units, and 50
townhouses if both the text amendment and an anticipated rezoning
application of the balance of his acreage were to be approved. This contrasts
sharply with the 61 single-family units that could be constructed with a
future rezoning, but no text amendment.
v) By adding 262 new dwelling units, the inventory of units increased by 4.85
percent as does the population from this proposal alone. Given the recent
work of the Weldon Cooper Center, If the units are not occupied by pent
up demand in Madison, the units will most likely be filled by in-migrants
from Northern Virginia (Lombard, H. (2024, January 29). Amid slow
population growth, Virginia’s demographic landscape is being
transformed. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Policy. Retrieved January 5,
2026, from https://www.coopercenter.org/research/amid-slowpopulation-growth-virginias-demographic-landscape-being-transformed)
vi) I have no problem whatsoever for a person to be incentivized to or
successful in making a profit. HOWEVER, our job is to serve the public
need and that does not include adding a tax burden to those existing
taxpayers who are not benefiting from our actions or giving a free ride to
new taxpayers who will not be bearing their share of the costs of
government. The only beneficiaries in this model are the developer and
the new dwelling purchasers.
7) Goal 3.5 (page 55) of our current Comprehensive Plan provides that we shall:
“Avoid initiatives that would result in the need to expand unreimbursed service
capacity of county services.” This initiative would, without proffers, fail the
established goal.
KNOWN UNKNOWNS
1) Initiatives are underway to appeal or amend SB 974 to restore the rights of
citizens that were summarily stripped by the General Assembly but the success
of that initiative is uncertain.
2) Staff suggests that we should anticipate initiatives from the General Assembly to
require “affordable housing.” Given other initiatives of the statists in the General
Assembly, we can anticipate other diminution of citizen rights in zoning matters,

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 7 of 8
viz, solar farms, affordable housing, data centers, etc. It should be noted that
housing is a regional effort and this region appears to have ample “affordable”
housing as a trip from Charlottesville to Culpeper on Rt. 29 will demonstrate.
3) Initiatives are underway in Madison to recruit candidates for economic
development. We know that water and sewerage will be necessary on the Rt 29
Commercial Corridor but the unknown is how taps and EDUs can be set aside for
economic development.
4) Black Swans.
FISCAL IMPACT BASED ON MADISON COUNTY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET
STANDARD CATEGORIES
General Govt Administration
Judicial Administration
Public Safety
Public Works
Health and welfare
Education
Parks, Recreation, Cultural
Economic & Community
Development
Non-Departmental
(Contingency)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Revenue from the Feds
Revenue from the State
LOCAL CONTRIBUTION
TOTAL REVENUE

2026 BUDGETED
$
2,848,211
$
1,473,248
$
10,335,828
$
1,507,816
$
6,782,772
$
26,397,863
$
622,933
$

746,342

$

1,530,321

$

52,245,334

$
$
$
$

4,440,885
19,460,753
28,343,696
52,245,334

Should you want to look at the cost on a per capita basis:
Census data: ACS
2023 5-year unless
noted*

Population

13,931

square miles

320.6

FISCAL
IMPACT
TOTAL

FISCAL
IMPACT
LOCAL

$ 3,750.29 $ 2,034.58
.

people per square
43.4
mile
Number of
5,392
$ 9,689.42 $ 5,256.62
households
People per
2.58
household
*The 2019-2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates

IN RE: Case No. ZOA-05-25-01 Ordinance Amendment
Comments of James H. Smith, CPC
1 October 2025 -- 7 January 2026
Page 8 of 8
https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html

Madison County Board of Supervisors
Madison County Planning Commission
414 N. Main Street, Madison, VA 22727

7 January 2026

Subject: Case ZOA-05-25-01 RSZoningText Amendment Application
Dear Members of the Madison County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission,
I am writing to request you deny the request to amend the R3 Zoning Ordinance, which is now
before you for a second public hearing.

At the first hearing, the Board of Supervisors raised concerns and suggested potential changes and
compromises, and the request was returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
However, no substantive changes were made. The proposal before you today is virtually identical to
the original request.
This outcome reflects a fundamental limitation of the Zon/ng Text Amenc/ment application process:

the Planning Commission was asked to evaluate a single, developer-driven amendment rather than
examine the county’s housing and zoning ordinances as a whole. As a result, the broader impacts
on property taxes, infrastructure, and other stakeholders were not meaningfully addressed.

Planning Commission member Jim Smith has submitted a proposal that offers a constructive path

forward—one that would initiate a comprehensive review of the county’s zoning ordinances and
allow for a thoughtful update to the overall zoning framework. Such a process would ensure that
any changes to housing density are carefully considered, equitable, and aligned with the county’s
long-term goals.

We respectfully urge the Board not to approve this request. Approving ordinance changes tailored
to a single project without a comprehensive review, risks unintended and long-lasting
consequences. Decisions of this magnitude should be made through a deliberate, county-wide

review process—not through piecemeal amendments designed to accommodate one development
proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Lynn M. Dawson
240 Riding Trail Ln
Madison, VA 22727

To:

Madison County Planning Commission

From:

Allen Nicholls, Planning and Zoning Administrator

Subject:

Livestock on lots less than two acres

Date:

January 7, 2026

Case Summary
The Board of Supervisors has directed the Planning Commission to consider amendments
to Madison County Zoning Ordinance, Article 5-2-1 (and by extension, 5-1-1). This directive
comes as a result of a special use permit application (Case No. SU-05-25-01, approved
November 5, 2025) being submitted to keep goats on R-1 zoned property.

Background
The Planning Commission has been tasked with reviewing Appendix 1, Article 5-2-1 of the
Madison County Code of Ordinances. This section currently classifies the keeping of
livestock on parcels under two acres as a Special Use Permit (SUP) activity.

There are three options:
•
•
•

Recommend maintaining the ordinance as written.
Recommend revising or amending the ordinance.
Recommend striking the ordinance, thereby making the keeping of livestock on lots
less than two acres a by-right use.

Timeline
First Workshop June 18th, 2025

Second Workshop August 20th, 2025
Public Hearing, October 1st, 2025
-

During the public hearing the Planning Commission was unable to make a
decision. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors directed the Planning
Commission to continue work on evaluating the ordinance.

Third Workshop October 15th, 2025
Fourth Workshop November 19th, 2025

Key Issues and Considerations
1. Regulatory Redundancy
Madison County Animal Control currently has broad authority to enforce standards
regarding animal welfare, nuisance conditions, neglect, and abuse, regardless of lot size.
As such, the SUP requirement in 5-2-1 is redundant, adding a layer of bureaucratic review
without necessarily enhancing public or animal welfare outcomes.

2. Land Use and Property Rights
Striking the ordinance would affirm property owners’ rights to reasonably use their land,
especially for personal or small-scale agricultural purposes. Madison County’s rural
character supports a culture of self-sufficiency and small homesteading. The current
restriction may inhibit traditional rural uses and deter sustainable living practices.

3. Administrative Burden
Requiring a Special Use Permit imposes time and cost burdens on both applicants and
County staff, often without significant land use impact. Removing the SUP requirement for
livestock on smaller lots could streamline administrative processes, reducing demand on
planning resources.

4. Consistency and Fairness
The two-acre threshold is arbitrary in some contexts; it does not account for lot layout, type
of livestock, or management practices. This is especially true when considering that there
is no minimum size of parcels for livestock in the C-1 and A-1 districts.

5. Enforcement and Oversight
Concerns about runoff and animal welfare can be addressed through existing health codes
and Animal Control regulations. Any egregious cases of poor animal care or neighbor
impact is still actionable under current law, even without a SUP framework.

Staff Recommendation: Strike Article 5-2-1
Given the existing oversight powers of Madison County Animal Control, and in support of
minimizing unnecessary regulation, the Planning Commission is encouraged to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors the striking of Article 5-2-1 in its entirety, thereby
making the keeping of livestock on lots smaller than two acres a by-right use. This
approach promotes individual landowner freedom, respects the county’s rural values,
eliminates duplicative regulatory hurdles, and places enforcement where it belongs, which
is under existing animal welfare laws.

ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED R-1

ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED R-1
Statement of Intent
This district is established to provide quiet, low density residential areas in those portions of the County
where they currently exist and where expansion of such low density areas can reasonably occur. The regulations of
this district are designed to promote harmonious residential communities and suitable environments for family
life. Permitted uses thus are limited to relatively low concentrations of single family dwellings and complementary
uses such as schools, churches, and parks and public facilities that serve the district's residents more intense uses
such as commercial and industrial are considered inappropriate.
In addition to the zoning ordinances, uses in this zone may be subject to the requirements of Madison
County's Subdivision Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, and/or Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
and/or Floodplain Management Ordinance.
5-1. Use Regulations.
In the Residential, Limited (R-1) District, no building shall be erected or altered and no building or
premises shall be used for any purpose except:
Uses Permitted by Right
5-1-1.

Agriculture as defined, including gardens, excluding livestock on lots less than two acres.

5-1-2.

Single family dwelling.

5-1-3.

Church, parish hall, and rectory.

5-1-4.

Public park and playground.

5-1-5.

Public school.

5-1-6.

Library.

5-1-7.

Public Service Corporation transmission lines, poles, pipes, meters, transformers and other
facilities necessary for the transmission and maintenance of public service utilities. Subject to Code of
Virginia, § 15.1-456, as amended.

5-1-8.

Accessory use and building.

5-1-9.

Home occupation as defined.

5-1-10.

Small wind energy system.

5-1-11.

Solar energy system (see Article 14-16).

5-1-12.

Short-Term Lodging Unit, see Article 20-160A (Definitions).

5-2. Special Permit Uses. The following uses may also be permitted subject to securing a special use permit as
provided for in Article 14-3:
5-2-1.

5-2-2.

Livestock on lots less than two acres. However, if such livestock is for the purpose of a child’s
education or participation in 4-H, Future Farmers of America, Scouting America, or similar group,
activity, or curriculum, then it is by right but only after approval by the zoning administrator. The
zoning administrator shall provide the livestock application form and require qualifying documentation
such as from the child’s faculty advisor or counselor or sworn statement from the child’s parent or
guardian. The fee for the application shall be set by the Board of Supervisors.
Wayside stand.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 1 of 4

ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED R-1

5-2-3.

Cemetery.

5-2-4.

Lodge, inn, or hotel with interior eating facilities or overnight lodging.

5-2-5.

Private school and day care center.

5-2-6.

Water and sewage treatment or distribution facilities where same are required by state and/or
federal regulations to protect the public health.

5-2-7.

Private park and playground.

5-2-8.

Public or community building.

5-2-9.

Two family dwelling (duplex).

5-2-10.

Golf course.

5-2-11.

Golf driving range.

5-2-12.

Country club.

5-2-13.

Professional office (limited).

5-2-14.

Rooming or boarding house.

5-2-15.

Antique, craft, or gift shop in a structure under 2,500 square feet.

(Ord. of 3-18-1998, § 2; Ord. No. 2022-OA-10-22-26, § 4, 10-5-2022)
5-3. Area Regulations.
The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall be 1.5 acres (65,340 square feet) without public water
and sewer systems, and one acre (43,560 square feet) with public water and sewer systems. All
dwellings located on a parcel without public water and sewer shall require a minimum of 1.5 acres per
dwelling; all dwellings located on a parcel with public water and sewer shall require a minimum of one
acre per dwelling.
(Ord. No. 2020-8, 3-4-2020)
5-4. Setback Regulations.
Structures shall be located 35 feet or more from any street right-of-way which is 50 feet or greater in
width, or 60 feet or more from the center line of any street right-of-way less than 50 feet in width.
All accessory structures must be located ten feet or more from any property line.
(Ord. No. 2020-7, 3-4-2020)
5-5. Lot Width Requirements.
The minimum frontage for permitted uses shall be 150 feet at the setback line, or measured at the
location of the foundation of the subject parcel's principal dwelling or accessory building. The
minimum distance which the building is required to be located from the street right-of-way or center
line shall be known as the setback line.
(Ord. No. 2020-9, 3-4-2020)
5-6. Yard Regulations.
5-6-1.

Side. Each main structure shall have side yards of 15 feet or more.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 2 of 4

ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED R-1

5-6-2.

Rear. Each main structure shall have a rear yard of 35 feet or more.

5-7. Sign Regulations.
Signs shall conform to Article 12 of this ordinance.
5-8. Height Regulations.
5-8-1.

Buildings may be erected up to 35 feet in height from the average adjacent ground elevation
except that:

5-8-2.

The height limit for dwellings may be increased up to 45 feet and up to three stories provided
each of the two side yards is ten feet, plus one foot or more for each additional foot of building height
over 35 feet.

5-8-3.

A public or semi-public building such as a school, church, library, or hospital may be erected to a
height of 60 feet provided that required front, side, and rear yards shall be increased one foot for each
foot in height over 35 feet.

5-8-4.

Church spires, belfries, cupolas, monuments, water towers, fire towers, flues, flagpoles,
television antennae, and radio aerials may exceed the height limit by no more than 25 feet. Parapet
walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest.

5-8-5.

Additional height above the stated height regulations requires a special use permit as provided
for under Article 14-3 of this ordinance.

5-8-6.

No accessory building which is within 20 feet of any party lot line shall be more than 15 feet high.
All accessory buildings shall be less than the main building in height.

5-9. Off-street Parking.
Off-street parking is subject to section 14-9 of this ordinance.
5-10. Entrance Regulations.
5-10-1.
The centerline of any entrance onto a Virginia primary road shall be 600 feet or more from the
centerline of any adjacent entrance; provided, however, each parcel of land that fronts on a Virginia
primary road and is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County prior to June
20, 1990, shall be permitted to have at least one such entrance; and provided further that the
aforesaid distance between entrances may be decreased to a point of nearest relief upon application
by special use permit if the Board of Supervisors after recommendation from the Planning Commission
and approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation finds that exceptional topographical
conditions such as rock formations or floodplain areas justify such decrease.
Each application for a special use permit under this paragraph shall include a plat of survey showing
both the 600-foot entrance point and the point of nearest relief. After approval, said plat of survey
shall be recorded by the applicant in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County.
5-10-2.
The centerline of any entrance onto U. S. Route 29 shall be 900 feet or more from the centerline
of any adjacent entrance; provided, however, each parcel of land that fronts on U. S. Route 29 and is
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County prior to June 20, 1990, shall be
permitted to have at least one such entrance; and provided further that the aforesaid distance
between entrances may be decreased to a point of nearest relief upon application by special use
permit if the Board of Supervisors after recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval
of the Virginia Department of Transportation finds that exceptional topographical conditions such as
rock formations or floodplain areas justify such decrease.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 3 of 4

ARTICLE 5. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED R-1

Each application for a special use permit under this paragraph shall include a plat of survey showing
both the 900 foot entrance point and the point of nearest relief. After approval, said plat of survey
shall be recorded by the applicant in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Madison County.
Entrances shall be located at crossover points on U. S. Route 29 if feasible and required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The aforesaid entrance regulation shall not apply to U.S. Route 29 Business.

Madison County, Virginia, Code of Ordinances
(Supp. No. 5)

Created: 2025-06-25 09:42:36 [EST]

Page 4 of 4

MADISON COUNTY BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
410 N Main Street, Madison, VA 22727
Phone: (540) 948-6102
www.madisonco.virginia.gov
Application For Livestock On R-1 Zoned Properties Less Than Two Acres
1. Applicant Information
Child’s Name:
Parent/Guardian Name:
Parent/Guardian Phone Number:
Parent/Guardian Email Address:
2. Property Information
Property Address:
Parcel Number (Tax Map):
Lot Size (Acres):
3. Livestock Request Details
Type(s) of Livestock:
Number of Animals:
Purpose:
o ☐ 4-H Program
o ☐ FFA (Future Farmers of America)
o ☐ Scouting/Similar Educational Program
o ☐ Other Educational Activity (Describe):
Program/Activity Name:
Program Advisor/Instructor Name:
Advisor/Instructor Contact Information:
4. Required Documentation
Attach letter/statement from faculty advisor, counselor, or program leader OR sworn statement from parent/guardian.
5. Acknowledgment & Signatures
I certify that the information provided is true and correct. I understand that approval is required prior to keeping
livestock on a R-1 zoned lot less than two acres.
Signature of Parent Guardian:________________________________________________ Date:___________________
Zoning Administrator Use Only
Application Received On:
Application Fee Paid $:
Approved / Denied:
☐ Approved
☐ Denied
Conditions of Approval/Permit Validity Period (12 months from issuance if not specified):
Signature: ____________________________________________________________________Date:_________________

Comments of James H Smith before the Joint Meeting of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, 7 January 2026
In re Striking Ordinance Appendix 1, Article 5-2-1 which requires a special use
permit for livestock on lots less than two acres and Amending Ordinance
Appendix 1, Article 5-1-1 by striking the exclusion of livestock on lots less than
two acres as by-right use.
As has been stated, this proposal began through complaints from one neighbor of a
less than 2-acre parcel against another neighbor who lived on a 2-acre parcel and, in
violation of the ordinance has, over time, had a flock of chickens, cattle, and most
recently, goats and never requested a special use permit. After several hearings, a
special use permit was granted the landowner on November 5, 2025.
I have objected to both the special use permit and the proposal to strike the
provisions of Article 5-2-1. The reasons were, I thought, clearly stated in earlier
hearings as contained in the packet for tonight’s meeting. Simply stated, allowing
such a change is violative of the underpinning of our system of laws and the notion
of the social contract.
As a society we as individuals consent to be subject to rules and laws and thereby
give them legitimacy. That agreement is the underpinning of our legal system and is
called the Social Contract. Born in the Age of Enlightenment, it proffers that
legitimate political authority arises from a social contract agreed upon by the
people. and we are actually discussing the efficacy of tossing it and its proponents,
Locke, Kant, Hobbes and Rousseau under the bus.
In Madison, we advanced the social contract regarding Zoning on March 29, 1974
and in so doing, we landowners and land users agreed to abide by the use of our land
as provided in the ordinance. Unbridled property rights were restricted when the
Board of Supervisors adopted a zoning ordinance “for the purpose of promoting the
health, safety, and general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the
objectives of Code of Virginia, § 15.1-427. “Among other things, the ordinance was
designed “to protect against over-crowding of land, undue density of population in
relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air,
danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or
property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers.” (Madison County, Virginia - Code
of Ordinances, Appendix 1 – ZONING, Article I (6))
The proposal of abandoning our citizens who purchased their residences with the
expectation of not having a food lot or goat yard next door on a small residential lot
in the midst of small residential lots is an afront to the social contract. Abandoning
that restriction and suggesting that their only (legal) redress is limited to an animal
welfare violation (and not a violation of their quiet enjoyment of their property) and

Comments of James H Smith before the Joint Meeting of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, 7 January 2026
Page 2 of 3
that their claim must pass through the local animal control or the state Veterinarian
is the highest order of duplicity. We all understand that the “self-regulation” we
employ in Madison can result in an added burden on our administrative staff but the
enforcement function of the government is the price of dealing with individuals who
are violative of the contract. If scofflaws persist, we should consider enforcement
through dedicated staff or significant penalties or both.
As an aside, a month after being granted a special use permit, the applicant, in his
felony conviction sentencing on a related matter, was explained the foundational
concept in political philosophy and sociology, referring to an implicit agreement
among individuals within a society to abide by certain rules and laws for mutual
benefit and protection. The presiding judge explained that individuals consent,
either explicitly or implicitly, to form a society and accept its rules in exchange for
safety and communal benefits and the judge admonished him to abide by those
rules if not for himself, then as an example for his sons.
Our zoning ordinance provides for “[t]he use of land, buildings, structures, and other
premises for agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, and other specific
uses.” The vast majority of land in Madison falls within Agricultural Zoning. As
students may find an interest in animal husbandry but find themselves on a small
acreage Residential property, citizens have proposed an acceptable exception has
been proposed, viz, change the ordinance to allow poultry (2 or 3 hens per occupant)
and allow livestock when it is the subject of an active 4-H, FFA or Scouting project.
Special Use Permits would be required for such projects but there would be no
application fee and the appropriate certification of the faculty sponsor of the
student regarding the project would result in its being granted administratively.
Thereby, students would gain not only a skillset in animal husbandry but also an
appreciation for civic responsibility. I would agree with Supervisor Jewett’s
suggestion that adherence to USDA guidelines for stocking in addition to VDACS
regulations be included in the ordinance.
PROPOSAL:
5-2. Special Permit Uses. The following uses may also be permitted subject to
securing a special use permit as
provided for in Article 14-3:
5-2-1.
5-2-2.
Livestock on lots less than two acres. However, if such livestock is for the purpose of
a child’s education or participation in 4-H, Future Farmers of America, Scouting

Comments of James H Smith before the Joint Meeting of the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, 7 January 2026
Page 3 of 3
America, or similar group, activity, or curriculum, then it is by right but only after
approval by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall provide the
livestock application form and require qualifying documentation such as from the
child’s faculty advisor or counselor or sworn statement from the child’s parent or
guardian. The fee for the application shall be set by the Board of Supervisors.
In keeping with the spirit of Supervisor Yowell’s and Supervisor Jewett’s
comments in the recent SUP request, the proposed “Application For Livestock On
R-1 Zoned Properties Less Than Two Acres” should contain a statement to the
effect that the applicant understands that the care of the animals must satisfy the
requirements of the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“VDACS”) regarding the welfare
of farm animals.

This proposal to tweak the ordinance is well within the parameter of the Social
Contract; the proposal to abandon it is not.
Thank you for your consideration.